2024-09-24 11:42:59 +00:00
|
|
|
use crate::{derive_data::StructField, ReflectStruct};
|
bevy_reflect: Reflect remote types (#6042)
# Objective
The goal with this PR is to allow the use of types that don't implement
`Reflect` within the reflection API.
Rust's [orphan
rule](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#implementing-a-trait-on-a-type)
prevents implementing a trait on an external type when neither type nor
trait are owned by the implementor. This means that if a crate,
`cool_rust_lib`, defines a type, `Foo`, then a user cannot use it with
reflection. What this means is that we have to ignore it most of the
time:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(ignore)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
Obviously, it's impossible to implement `Reflect` on `Foo`. But does it
*have* to be?
Most of reflection doesn't deal with concrete types— it's almost all
using `dyn Reflect`. And being very metadata-driven, it should
theoretically be possible. I mean,
[`serde`](https://serde.rs/remote-derive.html) does it.
## Solution
> Special thanks to @danielhenrymantilla for their help reviewing this
PR and offering wisdom wrt safety.
Taking a page out of `serde`'s book, this PR adds the ability to easily
use "remote types" with reflection. In this context, a "remote type" is
the external type for which we have no ability to implement `Reflect`.
This adds the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro, which is used to
generate "remote type wrappers". All you have to do is define the
wrapper exactly the same as the remote type's definition:
```rust
// Pretend this is our external crate
mod cool_rust_lib {
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo {
pub value: String
}
}
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
> **Note:** All fields in the external type *must* be public. This could
be addressed with a separate getter/setter attribute either in this PR
or in another one.
The macro takes this user-defined item and transforms it into a newtype
wrapper around the external type, marking it as `#[repr(transparent)]`.
The fields/variants defined by the user are simply used to build out the
reflection impls.
Additionally, it generates an implementation of the new trait,
`ReflectRemote`, which helps prevent accidental misuses of this API.
Therefore, the output generated by the macro would look something like:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
struct FooWrapper(pub cool_rust_lib::Foo);
impl ReflectRemote for FooWrapper {
type Remote = cool_rust_lib::Foo;
// transmutation methods...
}
// reflection impls...
// these will acknowledge and make use of the `value` field
```
Internally, the reflection API will pass around the `FooWrapper` and
[transmute](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.transmute.html) it
where necessary. All we have to do is then tell `Reflect` to do that. So
rather than ignoring the field, we tell `Reflect` to use our wrapper
using the `#[reflect(remote = ...)]` field attribute:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(remote = FooWrapper)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
#### Other Macros & Type Data
Because this macro consumes the defined item and generates a new one, we
can't just put our macros anywhere. All macros that should be passed to
the generated struct need to come *below* this macro. For example, to
derive `Default` and register its associated type data:
```rust
// ✅ GOOD
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
// ❌ BAD
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
#### Generics
Generics are forwarded to the generated struct as well. They should also
be defined in the same order:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteGeneric<'a, T1, T2>)]
struct GenericWrapper<'a, T1, T2> {
pub foo: &'a T1,
pub bar: &'a T2,
}
```
> Naming does *not* need to match the original definition's. Only order
matters here.
> Also note that the code above is just a demonstration and doesn't
actually compile since we'd need to enforce certain bounds (e.g. `T1:
Reflect`, `'a: 'static`, etc.)
#### Nesting
And, yes, you can nest remote types:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteOuter)]
struct OuterWrapper {
#[reflect(remote = InnerWrapper)]
pub inner: RemoteInner
}
#[reflect_remote(RemoteInner)]
struct InnerWrapper(usize);
```
#### Assertions
This macro will also generate some compile-time assertions to ensure
that the correct types are used. It's important we catch this early so
users don't have to wait for something to panic. And it also helps keep
our `unsafe` a little safer.
For example, a wrapper definition that does not match its corresponding
remote type will result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirStruct(pub u32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirStruct)]
struct MyStruct(pub String); // ERROR: expected type `u32` but found `String`
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(unused_variables)]
#[allow(unused_assignments)]
#[allow(unreachable_patterns)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert_wrapper_definition_matches_remote_type(
mut __remote__: external_crate::TheirStruct,
) {
__remote__.0 = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<String> { None })().unwrap();
}
};
```
</details>
Additionally, using the incorrect type in a `#[reflect(remote = ...)]`
attribute should result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirFoo(pub u32);
pub struct TheirBar(pub i32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirFoo)]
struct MyFoo(pub u32);
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirBar)]
struct MyBar(pub i32);
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct {
#[reflect(remote = MyBar)] // ERROR: expected type `TheirFoo` but found struct `TheirBar`
foo: external_crate::TheirFoo
}
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
struct RemoteFieldAssertions;
impl RemoteFieldAssertions {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert__foo__is_valid_remote() {
let _: <MyBar as bevy_reflect::ReflectRemote>::Remote = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<external_crate::TheirFoo> {
None
})().unwrap();
}
}
};
```
</details>
### Discussion
There are a couple points that I think still need discussion or
validation.
- [x] 1. `Any` shenanigans
~~If we wanted to downcast our remote type from a `dyn Reflect`, we'd
have to first downcast to the wrapper then extract the inner type. This
PR has a [commit](b840db9f74cb6d357f951cb11b150d46bac89ee2) that
addresses this by making all the `Reflect::*any` methods return the
inner type rather than the wrapper type. This allows us to downcast
directly to our remote type.~~
~~However, I'm not sure if this is something we want to do. For
unknowing users, it could be confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Is it
worth keeping? Or should this behavior be removed?~~
I think this should be fine. The remote wrapper is an implementation
detail and users should not need to downcast to the wrapper type. Feel
free to let me know if there are other opinions on this though!
- [x] 2. Implementing `Deref/DerefMut` and `From`
~~We don't currently do this, but should we implement other traits on
the generated transparent struct? We could implement `Deref`/`DerefMut`
to easily access the inner type. And we could implement `From` for
easier conversion between the two types (e.g. `T: Into<Foo>`).~~ As
mentioned in the comments, we probably don't need to do this. Again, the
remote wrapper is an implementation detail, and should generally not be
used directly.
- [x] 3. ~~Should we define a getter/setter field attribute in this PR
as well or leave it for a future one?~~ I think this should be saved for
a future PR
- [ ] 4. Any foreseeable issues with this implementation?
#### Alternatives
One alternative to defining our own `ReflectRemote` would be to use
[bytemuck's
`TransparentWrapper`](https://docs.rs/bytemuck/1.13.1/bytemuck/trait.TransparentWrapper.html)
(as suggested by @danielhenrymantilla).
This is definitely a viable option, as `ReflectRemote` is pretty much
the same thing as `TransparentWrapper`. However, the cost would be
bringing in a new crate— though, it is already in use in a few other
sub-crates like bevy_render.
I think we're okay just defining `ReflectRemote` ourselves, but we can
go the bytemuck route if we'd prefer offloading that work to another
crate.
---
## Changelog
* Added the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro to allow `Reflect`
to be used on remote types
* Added `ReflectRemote` trait for ensuring proper remote wrapper usage
2024-08-12 19:12:53 +00:00
|
|
|
use quote::quote;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// A helper struct for creating remote-aware field accessors.
|
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
|
/// These are "remote-aware" because when a field is a remote field, it uses a [`transmute`] internally
|
|
|
|
|
/// to access the field.
|
|
|
|
|
///
|
2024-09-27 00:59:59 +00:00
|
|
|
/// [`transmute`]: std::mem::transmute
|
bevy_reflect: Reflect remote types (#6042)
# Objective
The goal with this PR is to allow the use of types that don't implement
`Reflect` within the reflection API.
Rust's [orphan
rule](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#implementing-a-trait-on-a-type)
prevents implementing a trait on an external type when neither type nor
trait are owned by the implementor. This means that if a crate,
`cool_rust_lib`, defines a type, `Foo`, then a user cannot use it with
reflection. What this means is that we have to ignore it most of the
time:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(ignore)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
Obviously, it's impossible to implement `Reflect` on `Foo`. But does it
*have* to be?
Most of reflection doesn't deal with concrete types— it's almost all
using `dyn Reflect`. And being very metadata-driven, it should
theoretically be possible. I mean,
[`serde`](https://serde.rs/remote-derive.html) does it.
## Solution
> Special thanks to @danielhenrymantilla for their help reviewing this
PR and offering wisdom wrt safety.
Taking a page out of `serde`'s book, this PR adds the ability to easily
use "remote types" with reflection. In this context, a "remote type" is
the external type for which we have no ability to implement `Reflect`.
This adds the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro, which is used to
generate "remote type wrappers". All you have to do is define the
wrapper exactly the same as the remote type's definition:
```rust
// Pretend this is our external crate
mod cool_rust_lib {
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo {
pub value: String
}
}
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
> **Note:** All fields in the external type *must* be public. This could
be addressed with a separate getter/setter attribute either in this PR
or in another one.
The macro takes this user-defined item and transforms it into a newtype
wrapper around the external type, marking it as `#[repr(transparent)]`.
The fields/variants defined by the user are simply used to build out the
reflection impls.
Additionally, it generates an implementation of the new trait,
`ReflectRemote`, which helps prevent accidental misuses of this API.
Therefore, the output generated by the macro would look something like:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
struct FooWrapper(pub cool_rust_lib::Foo);
impl ReflectRemote for FooWrapper {
type Remote = cool_rust_lib::Foo;
// transmutation methods...
}
// reflection impls...
// these will acknowledge and make use of the `value` field
```
Internally, the reflection API will pass around the `FooWrapper` and
[transmute](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.transmute.html) it
where necessary. All we have to do is then tell `Reflect` to do that. So
rather than ignoring the field, we tell `Reflect` to use our wrapper
using the `#[reflect(remote = ...)]` field attribute:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(remote = FooWrapper)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
#### Other Macros & Type Data
Because this macro consumes the defined item and generates a new one, we
can't just put our macros anywhere. All macros that should be passed to
the generated struct need to come *below* this macro. For example, to
derive `Default` and register its associated type data:
```rust
// ✅ GOOD
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
// ❌ BAD
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
#### Generics
Generics are forwarded to the generated struct as well. They should also
be defined in the same order:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteGeneric<'a, T1, T2>)]
struct GenericWrapper<'a, T1, T2> {
pub foo: &'a T1,
pub bar: &'a T2,
}
```
> Naming does *not* need to match the original definition's. Only order
matters here.
> Also note that the code above is just a demonstration and doesn't
actually compile since we'd need to enforce certain bounds (e.g. `T1:
Reflect`, `'a: 'static`, etc.)
#### Nesting
And, yes, you can nest remote types:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteOuter)]
struct OuterWrapper {
#[reflect(remote = InnerWrapper)]
pub inner: RemoteInner
}
#[reflect_remote(RemoteInner)]
struct InnerWrapper(usize);
```
#### Assertions
This macro will also generate some compile-time assertions to ensure
that the correct types are used. It's important we catch this early so
users don't have to wait for something to panic. And it also helps keep
our `unsafe` a little safer.
For example, a wrapper definition that does not match its corresponding
remote type will result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirStruct(pub u32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirStruct)]
struct MyStruct(pub String); // ERROR: expected type `u32` but found `String`
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(unused_variables)]
#[allow(unused_assignments)]
#[allow(unreachable_patterns)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert_wrapper_definition_matches_remote_type(
mut __remote__: external_crate::TheirStruct,
) {
__remote__.0 = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<String> { None })().unwrap();
}
};
```
</details>
Additionally, using the incorrect type in a `#[reflect(remote = ...)]`
attribute should result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirFoo(pub u32);
pub struct TheirBar(pub i32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirFoo)]
struct MyFoo(pub u32);
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirBar)]
struct MyBar(pub i32);
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct {
#[reflect(remote = MyBar)] // ERROR: expected type `TheirFoo` but found struct `TheirBar`
foo: external_crate::TheirFoo
}
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
struct RemoteFieldAssertions;
impl RemoteFieldAssertions {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert__foo__is_valid_remote() {
let _: <MyBar as bevy_reflect::ReflectRemote>::Remote = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<external_crate::TheirFoo> {
None
})().unwrap();
}
}
};
```
</details>
### Discussion
There are a couple points that I think still need discussion or
validation.
- [x] 1. `Any` shenanigans
~~If we wanted to downcast our remote type from a `dyn Reflect`, we'd
have to first downcast to the wrapper then extract the inner type. This
PR has a [commit](b840db9f74cb6d357f951cb11b150d46bac89ee2) that
addresses this by making all the `Reflect::*any` methods return the
inner type rather than the wrapper type. This allows us to downcast
directly to our remote type.~~
~~However, I'm not sure if this is something we want to do. For
unknowing users, it could be confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Is it
worth keeping? Or should this behavior be removed?~~
I think this should be fine. The remote wrapper is an implementation
detail and users should not need to downcast to the wrapper type. Feel
free to let me know if there are other opinions on this though!
- [x] 2. Implementing `Deref/DerefMut` and `From`
~~We don't currently do this, but should we implement other traits on
the generated transparent struct? We could implement `Deref`/`DerefMut`
to easily access the inner type. And we could implement `From` for
easier conversion between the two types (e.g. `T: Into<Foo>`).~~ As
mentioned in the comments, we probably don't need to do this. Again, the
remote wrapper is an implementation detail, and should generally not be
used directly.
- [x] 3. ~~Should we define a getter/setter field attribute in this PR
as well or leave it for a future one?~~ I think this should be saved for
a future PR
- [ ] 4. Any foreseeable issues with this implementation?
#### Alternatives
One alternative to defining our own `ReflectRemote` would be to use
[bytemuck's
`TransparentWrapper`](https://docs.rs/bytemuck/1.13.1/bytemuck/trait.TransparentWrapper.html)
(as suggested by @danielhenrymantilla).
This is definitely a viable option, as `ReflectRemote` is pretty much
the same thing as `TransparentWrapper`. However, the cost would be
bringing in a new crate— though, it is already in use in a few other
sub-crates like bevy_render.
I think we're okay just defining `ReflectRemote` ourselves, but we can
go the bytemuck route if we'd prefer offloading that work to another
crate.
---
## Changelog
* Added the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro to allow `Reflect`
to be used on remote types
* Added `ReflectRemote` trait for ensuring proper remote wrapper usage
2024-08-12 19:12:53 +00:00
|
|
|
pub(crate) struct FieldAccessors {
|
|
|
|
|
/// The referenced field accessors, such as `&self.foo`.
|
|
|
|
|
pub fields_ref: Vec<proc_macro2::TokenStream>,
|
|
|
|
|
/// The mutably referenced field accessors, such as `&mut self.foo`.
|
|
|
|
|
pub fields_mut: Vec<proc_macro2::TokenStream>,
|
|
|
|
|
/// The ordered set of field indices (basically just the range of [0, `field_count`).
|
|
|
|
|
pub field_indices: Vec<usize>,
|
|
|
|
|
/// The number of fields in the reflected struct.
|
|
|
|
|
pub field_count: usize,
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
impl FieldAccessors {
|
|
|
|
|
pub fn new(reflect_struct: &ReflectStruct) -> Self {
|
|
|
|
|
let bevy_reflect_path = reflect_struct.meta().bevy_reflect_path();
|
|
|
|
|
let fields_ref = Self::get_fields(reflect_struct, |field, accessor| {
|
|
|
|
|
match &field.attrs.remote {
|
|
|
|
|
Some(wrapper_ty) => {
|
|
|
|
|
quote! {
|
|
|
|
|
<#wrapper_ty as #bevy_reflect_path::ReflectRemote>::as_wrapper(&#accessor)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
None => quote!(& #accessor),
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
let fields_mut = Self::get_fields(reflect_struct, |field, accessor| {
|
|
|
|
|
match &field.attrs.remote {
|
|
|
|
|
Some(wrapper_ty) => {
|
|
|
|
|
quote! {
|
|
|
|
|
<#wrapper_ty as #bevy_reflect_path::ReflectRemote>::as_wrapper_mut(&mut #accessor)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
None => quote!(&mut #accessor),
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
});
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let field_count = fields_ref.len();
|
|
|
|
|
let field_indices = (0..field_count).collect();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Self {
|
|
|
|
|
fields_ref,
|
|
|
|
|
fields_mut,
|
|
|
|
|
field_indices,
|
|
|
|
|
field_count,
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fn get_fields<F>(
|
|
|
|
|
reflect_struct: &ReflectStruct,
|
|
|
|
|
mut wrapper_fn: F,
|
|
|
|
|
) -> Vec<proc_macro2::TokenStream>
|
|
|
|
|
where
|
|
|
|
|
F: FnMut(&StructField, proc_macro2::TokenStream) -> proc_macro2::TokenStream,
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
let is_remote = reflect_struct.meta().is_remote_wrapper();
|
|
|
|
|
reflect_struct
|
|
|
|
|
.active_fields()
|
|
|
|
|
.map(|field| {
|
2024-09-22 14:24:14 +00:00
|
|
|
let member = crate::ident::ident_or_index(
|
|
|
|
|
field.data.ident.as_ref(),
|
|
|
|
|
field.declaration_index,
|
|
|
|
|
);
|
bevy_reflect: Reflect remote types (#6042)
# Objective
The goal with this PR is to allow the use of types that don't implement
`Reflect` within the reflection API.
Rust's [orphan
rule](https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch10-02-traits.html#implementing-a-trait-on-a-type)
prevents implementing a trait on an external type when neither type nor
trait are owned by the implementor. This means that if a crate,
`cool_rust_lib`, defines a type, `Foo`, then a user cannot use it with
reflection. What this means is that we have to ignore it most of the
time:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(ignore)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
Obviously, it's impossible to implement `Reflect` on `Foo`. But does it
*have* to be?
Most of reflection doesn't deal with concrete types— it's almost all
using `dyn Reflect`. And being very metadata-driven, it should
theoretically be possible. I mean,
[`serde`](https://serde.rs/remote-derive.html) does it.
## Solution
> Special thanks to @danielhenrymantilla for their help reviewing this
PR and offering wisdom wrt safety.
Taking a page out of `serde`'s book, this PR adds the ability to easily
use "remote types" with reflection. In this context, a "remote type" is
the external type for which we have no ability to implement `Reflect`.
This adds the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro, which is used to
generate "remote type wrappers". All you have to do is define the
wrapper exactly the same as the remote type's definition:
```rust
// Pretend this is our external crate
mod cool_rust_lib {
#[derive(Default)]
struct Foo {
pub value: String
}
}
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
> **Note:** All fields in the external type *must* be public. This could
be addressed with a separate getter/setter attribute either in this PR
or in another one.
The macro takes this user-defined item and transforms it into a newtype
wrapper around the external type, marking it as `#[repr(transparent)]`.
The fields/variants defined by the user are simply used to build out the
reflection impls.
Additionally, it generates an implementation of the new trait,
`ReflectRemote`, which helps prevent accidental misuses of this API.
Therefore, the output generated by the macro would look something like:
```rust
#[repr(transparent)]
struct FooWrapper(pub cool_rust_lib::Foo);
impl ReflectRemote for FooWrapper {
type Remote = cool_rust_lib::Foo;
// transmutation methods...
}
// reflection impls...
// these will acknowledge and make use of the `value` field
```
Internally, the reflection API will pass around the `FooWrapper` and
[transmute](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/mem/fn.transmute.html) it
where necessary. All we have to do is then tell `Reflect` to do that. So
rather than ignoring the field, we tell `Reflect` to use our wrapper
using the `#[reflect(remote = ...)]` field attribute:
```rust
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct SomeStruct {
#[reflect(remote = FooWrapper)]
data: cool_rust_lib::Foo
}
```
#### Other Macros & Type Data
Because this macro consumes the defined item and generates a new one, we
can't just put our macros anywhere. All macros that should be passed to
the generated struct need to come *below* this macro. For example, to
derive `Default` and register its associated type data:
```rust
// ✅ GOOD
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
// ❌ BAD
#[derive(Default)]
#[reflect_remote(cool_rust_lib::Foo)]
#[reflect(Default)]
struct FooWrapper {
pub value: String
}
```
#### Generics
Generics are forwarded to the generated struct as well. They should also
be defined in the same order:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteGeneric<'a, T1, T2>)]
struct GenericWrapper<'a, T1, T2> {
pub foo: &'a T1,
pub bar: &'a T2,
}
```
> Naming does *not* need to match the original definition's. Only order
matters here.
> Also note that the code above is just a demonstration and doesn't
actually compile since we'd need to enforce certain bounds (e.g. `T1:
Reflect`, `'a: 'static`, etc.)
#### Nesting
And, yes, you can nest remote types:
```rust
#[reflect_remote(RemoteOuter)]
struct OuterWrapper {
#[reflect(remote = InnerWrapper)]
pub inner: RemoteInner
}
#[reflect_remote(RemoteInner)]
struct InnerWrapper(usize);
```
#### Assertions
This macro will also generate some compile-time assertions to ensure
that the correct types are used. It's important we catch this early so
users don't have to wait for something to panic. And it also helps keep
our `unsafe` a little safer.
For example, a wrapper definition that does not match its corresponding
remote type will result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirStruct(pub u32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirStruct)]
struct MyStruct(pub String); // ERROR: expected type `u32` but found `String`
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(unused_variables)]
#[allow(unused_assignments)]
#[allow(unreachable_patterns)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert_wrapper_definition_matches_remote_type(
mut __remote__: external_crate::TheirStruct,
) {
__remote__.0 = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<String> { None })().unwrap();
}
};
```
</details>
Additionally, using the incorrect type in a `#[reflect(remote = ...)]`
attribute should result in an error:
```rust
mod external_crate {
pub struct TheirFoo(pub u32);
pub struct TheirBar(pub i32);
}
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirFoo)]
struct MyFoo(pub u32);
#[reflect_remote(external_crate::TheirBar)]
struct MyBar(pub i32);
#[derive(Reflect)]
struct MyStruct {
#[reflect(remote = MyBar)] // ERROR: expected type `TheirFoo` but found struct `TheirBar`
foo: external_crate::TheirFoo
}
```
<details>
<summary>Generated Assertion</summary>
```rust
const _: () = {
struct RemoteFieldAssertions;
impl RemoteFieldAssertions {
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
#[allow(clippy::multiple_bound_locations)]
fn assert__foo__is_valid_remote() {
let _: <MyBar as bevy_reflect::ReflectRemote>::Remote = (|| -> ::core::option::Option<external_crate::TheirFoo> {
None
})().unwrap();
}
}
};
```
</details>
### Discussion
There are a couple points that I think still need discussion or
validation.
- [x] 1. `Any` shenanigans
~~If we wanted to downcast our remote type from a `dyn Reflect`, we'd
have to first downcast to the wrapper then extract the inner type. This
PR has a [commit](b840db9f74cb6d357f951cb11b150d46bac89ee2) that
addresses this by making all the `Reflect::*any` methods return the
inner type rather than the wrapper type. This allows us to downcast
directly to our remote type.~~
~~However, I'm not sure if this is something we want to do. For
unknowing users, it could be confusing and seemingly inconsistent. Is it
worth keeping? Or should this behavior be removed?~~
I think this should be fine. The remote wrapper is an implementation
detail and users should not need to downcast to the wrapper type. Feel
free to let me know if there are other opinions on this though!
- [x] 2. Implementing `Deref/DerefMut` and `From`
~~We don't currently do this, but should we implement other traits on
the generated transparent struct? We could implement `Deref`/`DerefMut`
to easily access the inner type. And we could implement `From` for
easier conversion between the two types (e.g. `T: Into<Foo>`).~~ As
mentioned in the comments, we probably don't need to do this. Again, the
remote wrapper is an implementation detail, and should generally not be
used directly.
- [x] 3. ~~Should we define a getter/setter field attribute in this PR
as well or leave it for a future one?~~ I think this should be saved for
a future PR
- [ ] 4. Any foreseeable issues with this implementation?
#### Alternatives
One alternative to defining our own `ReflectRemote` would be to use
[bytemuck's
`TransparentWrapper`](https://docs.rs/bytemuck/1.13.1/bytemuck/trait.TransparentWrapper.html)
(as suggested by @danielhenrymantilla).
This is definitely a viable option, as `ReflectRemote` is pretty much
the same thing as `TransparentWrapper`. However, the cost would be
bringing in a new crate— though, it is already in use in a few other
sub-crates like bevy_render.
I think we're okay just defining `ReflectRemote` ourselves, but we can
go the bytemuck route if we'd prefer offloading that work to another
crate.
---
## Changelog
* Added the `#[reflect_remote(...)]` attribute macro to allow `Reflect`
to be used on remote types
* Added `ReflectRemote` trait for ensuring proper remote wrapper usage
2024-08-12 19:12:53 +00:00
|
|
|
let accessor = if is_remote {
|
|
|
|
|
quote!(self.0.#member)
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
quote!(self.#member)
|
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrapper_fn(field, accessor)
|
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
.collect::<Vec<_>>()
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
